I had noticed a strange feature in an arrangement of the planetary orbits, externally reminding the orbital resonances, known already of some centuries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance . To notice existence of orbital resonances is simply. It is the commensurability of the periods of two bodies at which their orbital periods is close to rational numbers with small numerators and denominators. My commensurability not lays on a surface.

Probably, many noticed an amusing thing. If to send a rocket to an orbit of the Venus, it, having made 5 turns, will come back to the Earth on which will pass 4 years. It is the orbital resonance 4/5, but not between direct two planets directly. This resonance is between one of the planet and the "intermediate" particle flying between planetary orbits.

But this cleanly casual concurrence can? I have checked up other variants and have found similar cases. If between orbits of the Jupiter and the Venus an asteroid is flying then through everyone 7 turns it come nearer to the Jupiter again (through 3 turns of the Jupiter). It is a resonance 3/7. If Saturnine inhabitants will send a space probe to an orbit of the Neptune, it will return to them, having made a single turn for the period to three Neptunian year. These three resonances (4/5 3/7 3/1) are carried out though not absolutely exact, but with very big accuracy, not the worst, than accuracy of usual orbital resonances.

Orbital resonances are available not only for planets, but also for regular satellites of planets-giants. I have checked up these systems not presence of "my" resonance type (I call it the orbital resonance of second type, or interorbital resonsnce), and have found out them in all these satellite systems.

Here is a place where I ask my question. Whether are all these numbers simple accidents or it is any hitherto unknown law.

If in Solar system was available tens planets with the satellite systems, it would be possible to answer unequivocally this question by means of only probability theory (though, and not having opened the physical reason of the phenomenon). But it is not a lot of planets and satellites to make the confident conclusion.

The situation is rather similar to Bode "law", which remain without results argue more than two centuries. I consider Bode law as accident. The arrangement of planets has coincided with a prediction of this rule only twice. And that first prediction - Uranus was as though "entrance fee". Before opening of Uranus the law was practically unknown. The second come true prediction – the Ceres, also raises the doubts (it not a planet, but the largest body of main belt). For two centuries it was not found out even a hint on existence of the reasonable physical reason of existence of strict sequence of planetary orbits in space from the Venus up to the Uranus. In fact planets very much differ on weights and a chemical compound. In various parts of protoplanetary disk it were various processes and the formation of planets could proceed differently. Whence then to undertake the global law uniting all of a planet. And at last, Bode law is inapplicable to satellite systems.

The situation with my resonances is more optimistical (as seems to me). The number of resonant cases is enough considerably. Resonances are also into satellite systems. And at last, my attempt to find a physical substantiation (as it seems to me) has crowned success.

At the other forum http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainst ... rmula.html . I had been opened a theme, which provocative name is mismatches true. Actually the formula is simply a special case of the third law of Kepler ( for my new type of resonances). To my bitter regret, the theme has been closed (because of my silly joke) on the most important for me place - transition of discussion to physics of the phenomenon (and I tragically was lost).

At this forum I would like to begin whenever possible at once discussion of physics of the phenomenon, having avoided routine questions on, whether the formula is correct and whether calculations are exact. I recommend before to ask such questions to read the mention above theme where they are considered in detail.

This is not the forum to discuss astronomy. And the link you posted proves thatanyway knowledgeable astronomer already demonstrated the weaknesses of your "theory". You are encouraged to stick to biology here. But please if you have an alternative evolution theory based on the same kind of insights than your new astronomy laws... keep it to yourself. We have enough nutcase in the evolution forum. Thanks. Thread closed.

Patrick

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)